Thread: Why Turkey should be not included EU?

Originally Posted by Medusa

if you cant understand what can ı do
politicians of eu themselves declares that they are a christian club. dont you know that???

reaally arent you aware of that?

they force turkey to change our national establisments such as Turkish army forces in to an un authorized marionette.

turkısh army forces mean lots of things for us and Turkey has an strategical position as you know

(ı am not sure in fact whether you know)

do eu really wants turkey to be democrat??

ewhyy??

and let me say a great majority of turks dont want eu but unfortunately our null governments try to marry a man who refuses her for so many times..

of course you dont still understand and accuses me of not being able to explain but you cant undetrsatnd unless you get rid of your western looking brain

I am actually in agreement here, not for political reasons but economic. Joining the European Union would be a disaster for Turkey economically. If Turkey wants to develop it needs cease relying on farming , tourism and raw materials and move towards further industrialisation. You can see this already when you look at how all the money is already in the industrialised Western part of the country around Istanbul and Izmir, go to the east and its like a different country (go to the South East and by rights it is :P). Every developed country in the world has become this way by using protectionism to develop its economy, protecting ones industries from other EU members is impossible after membership. Look at what happend to Italy and Greece.

Medusa is correct to describe the EU as colonialist (or more acurately imperialist) project. Just look at what is happening to Greece. Although thats not to say that it would not be great if Turkey democratised fully of its own accord.

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

I am actually in agreement here, not for political reasons but economic. Joining the European Union would be a disaster for Turkey economically. If Turkey wants to develop it needs cease relying on farming , tourism and raw materials and move towards further industrialisation. You can see this already when you look at how all the money is already in the industrialised Western part of the country around Istanbul and Izmir, go to the east and its like a different country (go to the South East and by rights it is :P). Every developed country in the world has become this way by using protectionism to develop its economy, protecting ones industries from other EU members is impossible after membership.

Countries like Indonesia and India are developing very quickly without ever having much of a manufacturing sector. Britain saw its greatest growth after repealing the Corn Laws. America is touted as a country that developed thanks to tariffs, but the country was already a massive market. Tariffs were also lower than they were in much of the 20th century; they were the federal government's primary source of revenue in the 19th century, but the government did not spend very much money. If anything, Turkey opening up trade would create a large manufacturing base for European firms thanks to its cheap labor.

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

Look at what happend to Italy and Greece.

Medusa is correct to describe the EU as colonialist (or more acurately imperialist) project. Just look at what is happening to Greece. Although thats not to say that it would not be great if Turkey democratised fully of its own accord.

Italy and Greece have been done in by their own governments. Italy's Christian Democrats, faced with little real competition, have grown moribund and overspent. The Greek government did the same thing, promising far more than it can deliver.

Originally Posted by kaya'08

I didnt say he was liberal, he was a product of his time. He championed female rights and condemned imperialism well before most European leaders, and unlike the US, blacks where not segregated. Ataturks authoritarianism was a short term road map for removing those who presented a threat to the secular democratic transition. Just like the US, Ataturk removed communist conspirators of the time (nazim hikmet) and wanted to create a Turkey that followed closely with US exceptionalism, so as to remove the threat of seperatist violence and succession, indeed, just as the Americans once did, and instigate a unitary state structure with a low minority count and a populatio with a largerly shared religion. Although this was not achieved through violence, merely by insisting that a citizen of Turkey was one who identified himself as a Turk, regardless of race, with the recognition that Turkey belongs to its citizens and nobody else, as it should.

Ataturk was what one calls a "positive" authoritarianist, somebody to command the state in a direction that is neccessary and vital for the continued existence of its people with no goal of doing so long term and in a manner not possible under complete democracy. That is what Ataturks party did, and when the time came, they introduced a plurist party system with elections.

While you highlight good examples of why Ataturk shouldnt be associated with liberalism, which is absolutely true, he arguably was if you think about how he removed religion and put in its place modern state mechanics, how he opened society up to the West and removed islamic based law with rationalist ones (female rights, legalization of homosexuality).

I guess my first question here is that if Ataturk gets away with being a ‘positive authoritarianist’ then why don't others? Castro? Tito? Napoleon? Fox News broadcasts in Venezuela everyday and you still criticise Chavez for being authoritarian, even though (for all his faults) his social and economic policies have been enormously successful. Is there not a slight double standard here?

Regardless, what I am arguing here is that not everyone who was persecuted under Ataturk and his followers was either a Moscow-inspired Communist or an Islamist. As for countering "separatist violence" you could argue that China was and is doing exactly this in Tibet. Do you support them as well? As we discovered in Ireland in the 1920s there is one very effective way to counter separatist violence, let them separate! The basis of our political system and philosophy that you are rightly defending here is that people should be able to choose the government that they live under. Surely if a people do not wish to live under Turkish rule then that is their right? What is to be gained from forced subjugation?

And of course a lot of the repression that we are talking about here was not directly against those seeking to separate but those wishing to speak their own language or even to name their children in these languages (and this was just being legalised when i arrived in Turkey in 2009). I already used the example of Ladino, a Judeo Spanish language that was once widely spoken among Jews in the Ottoman Empire that was severely persecuted during the 1930s during the “Citizen! Speak Turkish!*” campaign along with Greek Armenian and Kurdish which at that time where far more widely spoken. Now Ladino only has a few thousand speakers due to immigration to Israel (and who blame them) and a legitimate fear of speaking the language in public. If I ask even ODTÜ graduates about the language they generally haven’t even heard of it. This isn’t the result of an enlightened leader but of a totalitarian purge of other cultural influences.

But as far as both separatism and language are concerned what is the virtue of integrating non Turks into an exclusively Turkish state and society that they do not want to be part of? If it was simply a matter of a Turks defending themselves and not bothering anyone else then why the expansion into areas primarily populated by non Turks during and after the War of Independence? (I still feel pretty guilty saying this, but many parts of the Treaty of Sevres would not have been a bad idea) . I.E Wilsonian Armenia, Kurdistan, Hatay. Again I would like to point out that Ataturk would even have expanded into Mosul if we/the king of Iraq hadn’t stopped him (not that incorporating Kurdistan into Iraq was the most brilliant of ideas...). This isn’t about independence but expansionism that deprives other peoples of this same independence. And the region is still suffering as a result...

*If you are in university and have an Anthens account now then this article explains it quite well ingentaconnect "Citizen, Speak Turkish!": A Nation in the Making

dear red dave you are talking about kurdistan but ı think there hasnt been a state called Kurdistan in the past.both armenians and kurds were provoked by british government and french. and wilson principles and sevres caused european invasion after 1st world war.but ıt think you would like to see the eastern part as kurdistan and armenia...

why dou you want such a thing???

ı wıll never understand our liberals' such dreadful thoughts about Turkey


also let me say that the ones who were executed during our independence war were the protestorrs and opposites of our independence struggle. in other words they were betrayers

and Atatürk was a revolutionist as you know and of course revolutions sometimes are made by using force.

those times were hard enough and the events must be critisized according to the conditions of that period.

Originally Posted by Medusa

you dont know anyth,ng about them

they are not natıon because tehy live as clans
they cant communıcate even among themselves because in eastren anatolıa there are hundreds versıon of kurdısh and let me say that eastrern anatolıa is a land for turks too
when the turks came to anatolıa they made a land for themselves also many sources say that they had got to anatolıa hundred years before 1071
who can own anatolıa excepting turks??
are you kidding
you understand but dont want to make me understand that you understand me
amerıcan fears that theis national security is in danger ansd says that english must be natıonal but your kınd of turkısh lıberals say that f kurdsss kurdsssss
ı am tıred of lıberals inability of understanding on issue of our existence in anatolıa

How are Kurds any less entitled to a state than palestinians?
It was just the whim/unfairness/spoils of the Ottoman break-up that left some endowed, especially Saudis/Hashemites who got 'Iraq', 'Jordan', in addition to their 'own' Kingdom.

Kurds, unlike 22 Arab states, are a separate Ethnic group, Culture, and Language, unlike most of the Arab Middle East which are as you accuse 'clans' - Kingdoms, Sheikdoms, Emirates, etc.
Witness the trouble now from Libya to Lebanon to Syria and Iraq. "Tribes with Flags".
The Kurds, given the opportunity (from several current countries) could form a more Cohesive state than most of those who got one.


EDIT: Btw it's been interesting and informative watching 3 Turkish born posters disuss the issues. Thank you all.

Originally Posted by mbig

How are Kurds any less entitled to a state than palestinians?
It was just the whim/unfairness/spoils of the Ottoman break-up that left some endowed, especially Saudis/Hashemites who got 'Iraq', 'Jordan', in addition to their 'own' Kingdom.

Kurds, unlike 22 Arab states, are a separate Ethnic group, Culture, and Language, unlike most of the Arab Middle East which are as you accuse 'clans' - Kingdoms, Sheikdoms, Emirates, etc.
Witness the trouble now from Libya to Lebanon to Syria. "Tribes with Flags".
The Kurds, given the opportunity (from several current countries) could form a more Cohesive state than most of those who got one.


EDIT: Btw it's been interesting and informative watching 3 Turkish born posters disuss the issue. Thank you all.

was this the unfairness of ottomans or british government??

who created lots of states after world war 1st??

ottoman state??


kurds cant get on well even with each other and some of them vote for akp and some for pkk

why dont you say anything about pkk??

theykill the teachers sent to educate them in east

they kill doctors sent to care them

they kill our young soldiers nearlt every day

what cohesion are you talking about??


talk for your own countrry!!!!!!!!!!!!

do ı try to sepaerate your country??

Originally Posted by Medusa

was this the unfairness of ottomans or british government??
who created lots of states after world war 1st??
ottoman state??

I DO Blame the British govt. The losing Turks were obviously in no position to carve states.
You misunderstood.
Mentioning the "ottoman break-up" doesn't mean the Ottomans Broke it up. Perhaps a language barrier.

kurds cant get on well even with each other and some of them vote for akp and some for pkk
why dont you say anything about pkk??
theykill the teachers sent to educate them in east
they kill doctors sent to care them
they kill our young soldiers nearlt every day
what cohesion are you talking about??

I unequivocally express my revulsion of the PKK.
This does Not change my question however.
So I repeat: Why are Kurds, a Large and Truly distinct Ethnic, Cultural and Lingual group, any less entitled to a state than the palestinians?

talk for your own countrry!!!!!!!!!!!!
do ı try to sepaerate your country??

We are all here and can talk about Each other's countries.
that's the Purpose of this place.
If I felt someone deserved a country from part of mine I would be GLAD to discuss it.
You clearly are Not.
I realize this is a 'No Go' area for some in your country.

Originally Posted by mbig

I DO Blame the British govt. The losing Turks were obviously in no position to carve states.
You misunderstood.
Mentioning the "ottoman break-up" doesn't mean the Ottomans Broke it up. Perhaps a language barrier.


I unequivocally express my revulsion of the PKK.
This does Not change my question however.
So I repeat: Why are Kurds, a Large and Truly distinct Ethnic, Cultural and Lingual group, any less entitled to a state than the palestinians?


We are all here and can talk about Each other's countries.
that's the Purpose of this place.
If I felt someone deserved a country from part of mine I would be GLAD to discuss it.
You clealy are Not.
I realize this is a 'No Go' area for some in your country.

can anybody deserve America??

are you american or a liberal turk??

you seem so similar

who are you dear friend??


in history there hasnt been any state of kurds...

maybe you dont like this fact but unfortunately it is true

soemtimes ı want them to have a state but then ı remember that they have been killing us for years with the help of all westerner countries

(although it seems that america is our friend of course there cant be friendship in internatıonal arena))

and you try to say they deserved my country by killing me!!!


also ı dıdnt see your ooppositıon to pkk up to know


but ı wonder something
dıd you deserve amerıca by kiiling natives??(i am not sure ıf yo are amerıcan)



and why do you ask about palestinians??

why does it intrest me??


you are a turkısh liberal

and you dont like your own people ı think

Originally Posted by Medusa

if you cant understand what can ı do
politicians of eu themselves declares that they are a christian club. dont you know that???

reaally arent you aware of that?

they force turkey to change our national establisments such as Turkish army forces in to an un authorized marionette.

turkısh army forces mean lots of things for us and Turkey has an strategical position as you know

(ı am not sure in fact whether you know)

do eu really wants turkey to be democrat??

ewhyy??

and let me say a great majority of turks dont want eu but unfortunately our null governments try to marry a man who refuses her for so many times..

of course you dont still understand and accuses me of not being able to explain but you cant undetrsatnd unless you get rid of your western looking brain

whats your opinion on Turkey leaving Cyprus?

Originally Posted by Higgins86

whats your opinion on Turkey leaving Cyprus?

You almost sound like you think Turkey is camping in Cyprus. If the Turkish military left, the Northern Republic of Turkish Cyprus would remain, with its own armed forced under its sovereign de-facto government. Turkey is there to excercise authority over the South of Cyprus who believe they have a claim to the North, which they lost after launching a violent seperatist war in the 70's under a military regime.